An absolutely fascinating piece appeared yesterday in the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times. This is required reading. (registration required - excerpts below)

It seems that the mainstream press (with a few notable exceptions - the Wall Street Journal's John Fund for example) is only now beginning to understand and describe a phenomenon that we have documented on this site for over three years.

Excerpts:

"NEW YORK: Does the United States, the real country, exist in the French mind, or has America become a kind of Gallic fantasy, a dark specter to be deployed for political ends, a sort of ultimate negative against which the qualities of France shine?

That question may seem outlandish. The web of connections between the two countries is intricate. In general it is easier to fantasize about the unknown than the known. But the United States seems curiously impervious to French knowledge because the French prefer to preserve the country in the realm of the imaginary. (...)

Being the anti- France, the United States, it often seems, cannot be seen for what it is. So freighted is America with meaning, it ceases to be visible. It becomes an abstraction shaped by prejudice rather than a country intelligible through experience. It serves a purpose at the price of being severed from itself.

These reflections stirred onreading an eloquent example of Gallic delusion: the statement just published by Ségolène Royal's Socialist Party about Nicolas Sarkozy, her chief opponent in the French presidential election. This 87-page work amounts to a relentless exercise in Sarkozy-bashing through his depiction as that incarnation of menace: a card-carrying crypto-American.

Entitled "The Worrying 'Quiet Rupture' of Mr. Sarkozy," and displayed on Parti-socialiste.fr, the party's home page, the work begins by asking: "Is France ready to vote in 2007 for an American neo-conservative carrying a French passport?"

That gets the ball rolling. The party's core argument runs roughly as follows: America is bad, Sarkozy is its agent, ergo he is dangerous. The publication really has little more to say about Royal's center-right rival.

One chapter is entitled "Nicolas Sarkozy or the Clone of Bush." A memorable sentence, among many such gems, says: "Yesterday Europe was importing jeans, coke, rock 'n' roll and cinema from the United States. Now Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing that we import God!" (...)

The Socialist Party portraitof American society evokes a place rotten to the core, stricken by obesity and a high murder rate, driving exploited workers to the limits of endurance, imprisoning 2 percent of its population, engaged in a failed affirmative action experiment that has only "made a racial issue of all problems," and beset by an ominous religious fervor.

The real U.S. unemployment rate, it is preposterously suggested, is not 5.1 percent, but 9 percent. America under Bush has no interest in international law because its sole international aim is "the promotion of the American empire."

The death penalty, torture, renditions, secret prisons, short or non-existent vacations, absent or expensive health care, a Darwinian labor market and the worship of "the individualist entrepreneur" complete this happy picture of France's ally.

"It is in this," the Socialists conclude triumphantly, "that Nicolas Sarkozy sees the future of French society!"

There are a couple of problems with all this. The first is that although some of the individual claims have some merit — a health care system that leaves more than 40 million people without insurance is a bad system — the composite picture is wildly distorted, a collage of doom and gloom.

The America in which French companies from Accor to Business Objects prosper, which grows and creates jobs in ways France can only dream of, which is restlessly self- transforming rather than irksomely self-obsessed, which has assured the postwar European security from which France and the European Union have benefited — this United States is nowhere to be seen."

Indeed. For many in Europe, America is a dark fantasy constructed of prejudice and political bias with little if any connection to reality. And that leads us to a key insight: It is the media establishment that has played a crucial role in creating and fostering that dark fantasy! A very significant and influential segment of the media, driven by profit, greed and ideology, has consistently sought to stoke and exacerbate the prejudices and biases which Mr. Cohen so aptly describes. This is the fundamental problem and issue with which we have confronted our audience for as long as we have worked on this blog.

Remember Porsche CEO Wendelin Wiedeking's holier-than-you attitude vis-a-vis the US? Wiedeking's position - which is probably held by a majority of German managers and certainly by practically all German journalists - is that "anglo-saxon" capitalism is an inferior economic strategy as compared to the German "social market economy".

Then, of course, is the Kyoto debate in Germany, with wild accusations against supposedly anti-environmental policies of Bush and his neo-cons. How admirably and favorably the German philosophy of sustainability compares to these stinking non-caring Americans! Think Schroeder.

Porsche's chief executive on Friday warned of an impending business war between Germany on one side and France and Italy when he said plans by the European Commission to limit carbon dioxide emissions were an attack on German luxury carmakers.

The outspoken comments by Wendelin Wiedeking at the sports carmaker's annual meeting underline the nervousness of German carmakers, all of which are a long way above the proposed limits and are much more threatened than the likes of France's Renault and Peugeot and Italy's Fiat.

"It is an attack on BMW, Mercedes, Audi and ourselves ... This is a business war in Europe. We will fight," Mr Wiedeking told shareholders.

All four companies produce large luxury cars compared with the smaller ones of Renault, Peugeot and Fiat. In an extreme case, industry executives believe strict limits would threaten the existence of luxury carmakers.

The European Commission says it is committed to cutting vehicle emissions to 120 grammes per kilometre by 2012, although it has failed to agree a common line on how to achieve this. Porsche's average emissions are more than double this target. (...)

Mr Wiedeking's warning came as Porsche reported a six-fold rise in first-half pre-tax profits swelled by a number of one-off effects related to its large investment in VW. Porsche has spent €4bn ($5bn) buying a 27.4 per cent stake in the bigger German carmaker, and in the six months to the end of January marked up the value of its VW shares by €520m.

It also made a similar amount from share price hedging connected to VW, which, together with sums it made last year, mean it has earned more than €1bn from the policy.

In spite of a 3 per cent fall in revenue to €3bn, Mr Wiedeking said underlying profitability in its core automobile business had risen. Preliminary pre-tax profit rose from €278m to €1.45bn.

Hmm..profits seem to be pretty close to the heart of Mr. Wiedeking, definitely closer than environmental concerns. As to the ecological insensivity of Americans, you will find this chart of interest:

Development of particle limits for Diesel cars in g per km

Also of interest: a comparison of fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions of several Mercedes-Benz models for the U.S. and Germany (source):

(liter per kilometer / CO2 g/km)

S500U.S.: 11.2 / 264 g/kmGermany: 12.1 / 292 g/km

E 320 TU.S.: 9.1 / 214Germany: 10.6 / 254

SL 500U.S.: 11.0 / 259Germany: 12.1 / 292

Conclusion: the leading German luxury car maker sells cleaner and more fuel efficient models in the U.S. than in Germany! Why-oh-why?

BUT BUSH DIDN'T SIGN KYOTO!!!!

Update: What a coincidence! Benny Peiser from the Liverpool John Moores University headlines his CCNet newsletter: IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID: GERMANY TAKES UP FIGHT AGAINST EU EMISSION PLANS.

The hanging of Saddam Hussein met with widespread disapproval in the German media. The buzzwords were "cruel" (grausam) and "inhumane" (inhuman).

It is interesting to ponder what fate Saddam might have endured in the hands of contemporary German judges and/or politicians.

Most likely, Saddam would have gotten a gentle slap on the wrist. At best.

As was the case for another 20th century madman: Erich Honecker, the former dictator of communist East Germany. Admittedly, in comparison to Saddam, Honecker's crimes were not quite as large in magnitude, but he was responsible for several hundred deaths of those who tried to escape East Germany. Also, of course, he was running a police state that made life miserable for millions. Saddam probably viewed Honecker as an equal.

In 1993, Erich Honecker's trial found a quick and surprising end, shortly after it had started. Honecker was diagnosed with cancer:

And then suddenly he was scot-free, bundled into an official limousine and speeded to the airport. A day later he was in Chile, in the bosom of his exiled family. The Berlin court had heard the appeal to end the "cruelty" of the trial of Erich Honecker and made its favorable decision hurriedly, precluding any appeal to a higher court; the villain made a quick getaway.

How advantegeous for Honecker! Saddam would have killed for this outcome...

As it turned out, Honecker had another year and a half to live happily in the favorable climate of Chile, together with his wife Margot (which probably was the only drawback for him).

In contemporary Iraq, though, Honecker would have met with a different fate. For Davids Medienkritik, Alexander Leonard has visualized the most likely consequence:

The cruel and inhume fate of Erich Honecker if he had fallen into the hands of Iraqi judges.

I know of a few East Germans who would have loved to see him hanged, rather than living the relaxed life of a retiree in Chile. For them, this image might be at least a small consolation...

"You may be interested in this article at Focus titled “U.S.
Kids are Fat and Lazy.” This article represents the core of the
anti-Americanism that permeates all levels of the German media. They pick only
negative stories and present them in a mocking, sneering tone."

It must have taken a lot of professionalism, class and journalistic integrity for the headline writer to come up with that. Just another day of ugly stereotypes in German media. Our reader's comments really say it all. (Posted by Ray D.; Hattip Bret K.)

What exactly is the German foreign intelligence service, the BND, doing in Iraq? Although the public has had occasion to be aware of the BND presence, up until now most will have been led to believe that the BND has been "quietly" cooperating with American and coalition authorities. Even more skeptical observers will have assumed that it is at least not cooperating with America's enemies in the country. But a photograph published earlier this month in the German weekly Stern provides disturbing evidence that it is doing precisely that.

This is a projection of the population of European countries for 2050, taken from a publication of the German statistical bureau destatis (p. 16):

Germany's population will shrink from its current level of 82,5 million by roughly 10 percent until 2050. In addition, the age composition of the German population will change. While the current share of the 60+ group is already comparatively high at 25 %, it will rise to one third of the population in 2050. Conversally, the share of the "up to 20" group will fall from 21 % to 15 % (p. 17).

The average number of children per woman in Germany is 1,37 (2004) (p. 14). Of course, this is an average across all population groups. Women from immigrant families are substantially more fertile than German women; the reproduction rate of German women alone will be considerably lower than 1,37, probably less than 1,20 (my guess).

Within a few decades, Germany will face grave consequences of these demographic shifts:

The large group of retirees and pensioners - which will be mostly Christians - will have to be supported by a work force that is smaller than today, with a substantial share of Muslims. Already today, the German pay-as-you-go retirement system comes under heavy criticism.

The German elites, which today and for the foreseeable are overwhelmingly non-immigrant Christians, will face a population with a substantial share of immigrant non-Christians. A clash of values within seems inevitable.

I am not so sure whether the cherished German social welfare model will survive this clash...

(...) Lovie Smith became the first black head coach to make it all the way to the NFL’s marquee game yesterday when his Chicago Bears won the NFC championship. About four hours later, his pal and mentor, Tony Dungy, joined him there when his Indianapolis Colts took the AFC title. For the first time in the big game’s 41-year history, not one, but two black head coaches will be on the sidelines. “It means a lot,” Dungy said after a 38-34 victory over the New England Patriots. “I’m very proud to represent African-American coaches.”

Davids Medienkritik just added a gem to our collection of signed books. The
latest edition is "Hurra, wir kapitulieren!" (Hurrah, We
Capitulate!) by prominent journalist, author and blogger Henryk Broder. I was
lucky enough to attend a live reading and book signing at the German embassy
in Washington, D.C. and had a chance to speak briefly with the author himself.

The book itself is a must-read for anyone interested in
German political culture. It addresses the pervasive political correctness that
has led many in Europe and around the world to adopt an attitude of appeasement
and blind do-gooderism towards Islamic extremists while seeking to pin all the
world's problems on Israel and the United States. He discusses the very real
and growing synergy of ideas and shared objectives between Islamists and the
far left. The book is highly funny, sarcastic and sobering all at the same
time. We don't often recommend books, but "Hurrah, wir kapitulieren!"
is simply too good to ignore.

Bavarian premier Edmund Stoiber announces that he will step down in September 2007.

As argued below (in a German posting) Stoiber is a conservative with strong leanings towards "social" policies. His likely successor Guenter Beckstein, currently interior minister in Bavaria, is a long-time Stoiber friend. Both can be considered as pro U.S., at least regarding the military cooperation between Germany and the U.S.

Both Beckstein and Stoiber are advocates of subsidies for the agricultural sector. They are pro business, but hesitant to subscribe to free market policies - which comes as no surprise in a country such as Germany with a long tradition of cartels.

Moral relativism has a way of producing strange rationales and value systems. Nowhere was this more clearly on display than in a recent article in Germany's Handelsblatt, a financial daily. The piece, entitled, "US Firms Pressure German Firms Out of Iran," starts off with this fabulous graphic:

The USA is putting firms under massive pressure worldwide to stop
doing business with Iran. With that economic isolation they want to
force the country to stop its controversial atomic program. Especially
German firms are hard hit by that, indeed they traditionally do good
business in the region. The latest case comes from the banking world.

BERLIN. After massive pressure from the USA, Commerzbank has now
announced that it will end its processing of dollar-business for Iran
at the end of January. Commerzbank boss Klaus-Peter Mueller has already
publicly complained about the pressure from the Americans in his
position as President of the Federal Union of German Banks."

The article almost makes it sound as if the United States is to blame for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no hint that it might be wrong or unethical to trade with (and financially prop-up) Iran or other violent dictatorships/state-sponsors of terrorism. This despite the fact that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust is a myth. There is also no mention of Iran's support of Hezbollah nor does Handelsblatt mention the country's bleak human rights record. Instead, America is made out to be the bad guy while Ahmadinejad gets a free pass. One honestly has to ask, where are the German concepts of fair trade and economic and social justice in all of this? Where are the traditional objections to profiteering and capitalist excess?

The article continues:

"Now other German companies in other branches are worried about their
traditionally good Iran business. The results of the worsening climate
are already clearly visible: The German exports to Iran sank noticeably
in 2006 - in the first three quarters by 14 percent.

German businesses are now trying to prevent the contracts they have
signed with Tehran from becoming public at all. "Everything that might
touch on the US-business is deadly. Therefore nobody in Tehran talks
about his Iranian contracts," said a German business representative in
Tehran under the condition that his name would not be printed. Above
all, companies that are listed on US stock markets like
Daimler-Chrysler with large businesses in America are affected.
Siemens, for example, that according to Handelsblatt information is
near to concretely completing a 450 million Euro contract with Tehran
to deliver locomotives, does not want to comment on it publicly. Other
firms listed on the Dax (German stock market) like BASF or Linde are
moving on treacherous terrain with their involvement in Iran. BASF has
just now signed and sealed a 304 million Euro project involving an
Ammoniac-Urea facility in the Shiraz Petrochemical Complex. By
contrast, Linde's contract for a petrochemical facility, believed to be
secure, was cancelled by Tehran for the time being.

Not only the German economy is feeling the American intervention. In
order to prevent the billion-dollar involvement of the Chinese oil
company CNOOC in Iran, Washington presented "our concerns" to the
government in Peking and to the company. That was reported by the
speaker of the US embassy in Peking. Before that, US interventions lead
to the stoppage, for the time being, of Japanese financing for a
project in Iran worth about ten billion dollars.

The German government is following the US actions with concern. For
one, the Berlin strategy in the Iran negotiations is to only sharpen
the sanctions against Iran in increments and to thereby include all
countries, in other words Russia and China as well. Chancellor Angela
Merkel again emphasized that goal on Wednesday after a meeting with
Japanese Minister President Abe. On the other hand, the German
government fundamentally rejects the attempt by the US government to
enforce American law beyond its borders.

This growing problem of the so-called "Extraterritoriality" is also
named as a theme for the "Transatlantic Economic Initiative," with
which Chancellor Merkel seeks to strengthen the economic relations
between the EU and the USA."

Perhaps Chancellor Merkel ought to consider the chronic and growing problem of Iran's terrorist "extraterritoriality" in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in her efforts to improve transatlantic trade. Perhaps she ought to consider the potential impacts of a massive US boycott of goods from German companies like Siemens and BASF that insist on doing business with brutal dictators bent on a second Holocaust. Is it really in Germany's long-term interest to continue trade with a nation that threatens the fundamental security and moral interests of the entire western world? Are the short-term profits worth the cost?

And how about this double standard: When American investment firms do business in Germany, they are derided as bloodsucking parasites and "locusts" by German politicians and unions. On the other hand, when German firms busily sign deals in nations run by the most violent and reprehensible thugs, they are just trying to do some good business - and it is only the awful American "extraterritorial" interference getting in the way. And make no mistake: Iran is not the only case in point. While the international community struggles to put an end to genocide in Darfur, the German government is actively promoting annual trade fairs in Sudan for many of the same German multinational corporations that want to keep doing business in Iran.

Der SPIEGEL cover, December 2006: "The Greed of Big Money: Finance-Investors Grasp at German Businesses." Of course many of the "greedy investors" in question are American or British. No mention of greedy German CEOs profiteering in Iran and Sudan.

Perhaps German media like "Der Spiegel" and German politicians such as SPD Minister Franz Muentefering should spend a bit more time reviewing the activities of German corporations abroad before embarking on their next crusade against foreign multinationals. Of course it is far more convenient to make a scapegoat out of "the Americans" and the other foreign "locusts" than it is to stand against the unsavory trading practices of Germany's corporate giants. One honestly has to wonder why German anti-Globalization demonstrators aren't lining up by the thousands to protest German multinationals' dealings with Tehran and Khartoum. Perhaps morality applies only when it can be directed against the United States and Bush.

"Who was fair and balanced after Pres. Bush's speech?" asked Bill O'Reilly at FoxNews. He answered the question for the U.S. media - and summarized, that some were fair and others weren't. No clear picture emerged. It looked like a tie between fair and unfair reporting, something you would expect in a situation such as in Iraq where outcomes of military decisions are hard to predict.

As to the German media, unfair reporting on President Bush's speech wins hands down.

SPIEGEL: "Disaster...Bush completely isolated, like Nixon at the end..."

Stern: "Bush decided against advice of many military experts...Bush didn't understand discussion of last months...imprisoned in the labyrinth of his absolute truths..."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: "Bush helpless...sad and unsuccessful one-man-show...his biggest mistake: relying on military means rather than on political initiatives..."

tagesschau: (in an interview with tageschau correspondent Patrick Leclercq) "Nothing will change for Iraqis...all reactions from the Iraqi street are negative...people have no hope regarding the role of Americans..."

(BTW, the Chuck Hagel quote regularly pops up in the German media's reporting - as proof for a loss of confidence in President Bush "even among Republicans". No mention is made of Hagel's long-time anti-Bush positions (1, 2, 3) or of Lieberman's critique of Hagel's remarks.)

There were few fair comments:

FAZ: "Additional U.S. troops mean more targets for insurgents and terrorists...but they are needed to safeguard against a complete victory for terrorism..."

I cannot possibly describe or accurately translate the venomous, polemic tendencies in the reporting on Bush's speech in many German media outlets. Sure, serious political analysis has never been a major feature of German journalism - but the Bush Derangement Syndrome has apparently forced the system to new lows.